[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 134 (Tuesday, October 9, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6441-H6442]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANTITERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the CIA has a budget of over $30 billion. The
FBI has a budget of over $3 billion. In addition, $10 to $12 billion
are specifically designated to fighting terrorism. Yet, with all this
money and power, we were not warned of the events that befell us on
September 11.
Since the tragic attacks, our officials have located and arrested
hundreds of suspects, frozen millions of dollars of assets and gotten
authority to launch a military attack against the ring leaders in
Afghanistan. It seems the war against terrorists or guerillas, if one
really believes we are in an actual war, has so far been carried out
satisfactorily and under current law. But the question is do we really
need a war against the civil liberties of the American people?
We should never casually sacrifice any of our freedoms for the sake
of a perceived security. Most security, especially in a free society,
is best carried out by individuals protecting their own property and
their own lives. The founders certainly understood this and is the main
reason we have the second amendment. We cannot have a policeman
stationed in each of our homes to prevent burglaries, but owners with
property with possession of a gun can easily do it. A new giant agency
for homeland security cannot provide security, but it can severely
undermine our liberties. This approach may well, in the long run, make
many Americans feel less secure.
The principle of private property ownership did not work to prevent
the tragedies of September 11, and there is a reason for that. The
cries have gone out that due to the failure of the airlines to protect
us, we must nationalize every aspect of aviation security. This
reflects a serious error in judgment and will lead us further away from
the principle of private property ownership and toward increasing
government dependency and control with further sacrifice of our
freedoms.
{time} 1945
More dollars and more Federal control over the airline industries are
not likely to give us the security we all seek.
All industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good
security. They are protected not by the local police but by owners
putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring
identification cards to enter. All this, without any violation of
anyone's civil liberties. And in a free society private owners have a
right, if not an obligation, to profile if it enhances security. This
technique of providing security through private property ownership is
about to be rejected in its entirety for the airline industry.
The problem was that the principle of private property was already
undermined for the airlines by partial federalization of security by
FAA regulations. Airports are owned by various government entities. The
system that failed us prior to 9-11 not only was strictly controlled by
government regulations, it specifically denied the right of owners to
defend their property with a gun. At one time, guns were permitted on
airlines to protect the U.S. mail. But for more than 40 years, airlines
have not been allowed to protect human life with firearms.
Some argue that pilots have enough to worry about flying the airplane
and have no time to be concerned about a gun. How come drivers of
armored vehicles can handle both? Why do we permit more protection for
money being hauled around the country in a truck than we do for
passengers on an airline? If government management of airline security
has already failed us, why should we expect expanding the role of
government in this area to be successful? One thing for sure, we can
expect it to get very expensive and the lines to get a lot longer. The
Government's idea of security is asking ``who packed your bag''; ``has
the bag been with you since you packed it''; and requiring plastic
knives to be used on all flights while taking fingernail clippers away
from pilots.
Pilots overwhelmingly support their right to be armed, some even
threatening not to fly if they are not permitted to do so. This could
be done quickly and cheaply by merely removing the prohibition against
it, as my bill, H.R. 2896, would do. We must not forget four well-
placed guns could have prevented the entire tragedy of 9-11.
[[Page H6442]]
This is a crucial time in our history. Our policy of foreign
interventionism has contributed to this international crisis. How we
define our enemies will determine how long we fight and when the war is
over. The expense will be worth it if we make the right decisions.
Targeting the forces of bin Laden makes sense, but invading eight to 10
countries without a precise goal will prove to be a policy of folly,
lasting indefinitely, growing in size and cost in terms of dollars and
lives, and something for which most Americans will eventually grow
weary.
Our prayers and hopes are with our President that he continues to use
wise judgment in accomplishing this difficult task, something he has
been doing remarkably well under the very difficult circumstances.
But here at home it is surely a prime responsibility of all Members
to remain vigilant and not, out of fear and panic, sacrifice the rights
of Americans in our effort to maximize security.
Since the President has already done a good job in locating,
apprehending, and de-funding those associated with the 9/11 attacks
while using current existing laws we should not further sacrifice our
liberties with a vague promise of providing more security. We do not
need a giant new national agency in order to impose a concept of
Homeland Security that challenges our civil liberties. This is an idea
whose time has not yet come.
____________________